In late March, we held two editorial board sessions to discuss Senate Bill 126 which would make significant additions to an existing state law known as the Dealers Bill of Rights. While SB 126 is primarily directed at better protecting auto dealers from abuses by manufacturers, it also adds protections for tractor and motor sports dealers.

The reason for the editorial boards — one with representatives of the manufacturers and one with local dealers — was to let each have their say and to sort through the pros and cons of SB 126 which passed in the Senate 21-2.

When all was said and done, we editorialized in full-hearted support of the bill. We did so after hearing story after story of manufacturers like Mercedes-Benz, Honda and General Motors forcing dealers to renovate or build new facilities even before the costs of prior construction could be paid off or depreciated. We heard of dealers being required to buy office products and furniture from as far away as Italy for many times the cost of the similar product bought locally — something prohibited by sole-source contracts.

After our endorsement, we again heard from Daniel Gage, communications director for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. Gage was polite, but suggested that he didn’t get an adequate opportunity to address many of the specific concerns expressed by dealers.

To provide that opportunity, we twice emailed Gage a series of questions. Those emails included approximately two dozen points made by the dealers such as:■ Forcing some dealers to rebuild after only a few years and leaving others alone for decades.■ Manufacturers wanting 7-year rebuilds instead of 15 when depreciation rates stretch as long as 39 years.■ Not giving dealers what they can sell. (Some believe as a form of punishment.)■ Demanding parts payments immediately from dealers, but not paying dealers for cars sold for as long as 90 days.■ Inspecting furniture to make sure it has a company authorized sticker from the sole-source provider.■ Dealer signs contract, builds a business then when it comes time for renewal terms changed to “our way or highway.”■ $7,000 slab of imported Granite when could have been bought locally for $1,400.

We also emailed a copy of an information sheet produced by the dealers titled, “SB 126 Myth Busters.”

Among the issues addressed were increased cost to consumers created by the demands of manufacturers, money lost to the local economy when dealers are forced to buy from far away manufacturer-blessed companies, and that all but one provision in SB 126 is standard practice somewhere among the other 49 states. We also referred Gage to “Outraged — How Detroit and the Wall Street Car Czars Killed the American Dream,” which offers a scathing look at the government bailout and some of the abuses heaped on dealers across the country.

To date, we have not heard back from Gage, although we are told someone else representing the manufacturers is going to show up in Concord today.

It is not often that we should look to the government to involve itself by regulating within the free enterprise system, but as we editorialized after our meetings with Gage and the dealers:

“Under a free enterprise system businesses should be as free as possible from government regulation and interferences. But when relationships between businesses become lopsided because one side abuses its advantages of size and might over the other, it is time for government to step in and level the playing field.”On the web:http://tinyurl.com/Yes-SB126